2006 Hard Red Winter Wheat Quality Survey of the Great Plains

Transcription

1 006 Hard Red Winter Wheat Quality Survey of the Great Plains Kansas State University Agricultural Experiment Station and Cooperative Extension Service

2 Figure. Collection areas.

3 Purpose of the Survey The prosperity of hard red winter (HRW) wheat production in the United States depends largely on maintaining a competitive advantage within existing wheat markets, while continually striving to develop new marketing opportunities. To achieve these goals, new HRW wheat varieties must continually be developed, which will provide superior agronomic performance as well as desirable end-use characteristics. Additionally, the quality of the HRW wheat produced each year in the United States must be publicized as soon after harvest as possible, as domestic and international HRW wheat buyers rely on this information to make purchasing decisions. The Wheat Quality Laboratory in the Department of Grain Science and Industry at Kansas State University plays an instrumental role in reaching both of these objectives. First, the laboratory supports the development of new wheat varieties by providing extensive milling and baking evaluations of experimental wheat lines being developed at Kansas State University. Secondly, a HRW wheat quality survey was initiated this year in order to facilitate marketing opportunities in domestic and overseas markets. The results of this survey were publicized weekly through the International Grains Program in the Department of Grain Science and Industry. This publication was prepared to provide a final reporting of this HRW wheat quality survey. Description of Survey Beginning with the 006 HRW wheat harvest, HRW wheat samples were collected across the Great Plains region of the United States. The states included in this survey were Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Colorado, Nebraska, and South Dakota. The samples were collected from grain elevators located in predetermined production regions in each state (Figure ). The production regions were defined according to areas that contribute to key rail loading facilities. The number of samples collected in a given production region was based on the average annual production in that particular region. The goal in collecting samples based on average production and defining production regions in this manner was to most accurately estimate wheat quality at regional terminals for export customers. After collection, the samples were shipped to the Wheat Quality Laboratory in the Department of Grain Science and Industry at Kansas State University. The samples were subdivided and a representative subsample was sent to the Kansas Grain Inspection Service for official grade information. The remaining portion of each sample was retained at Kansas State University to determine additional physical and chemical characteristics. Subsequently, the individual samples were grouped according to state, production region, and protein level. In the six states surveyed, there were a total of production regions and four composite protein levels. The four composite protein levels were less than.5 percent (low),.5 to.5 percent (medium),.5 to.5 percent (high), and greater than.5 percent (strong). Additionally, an overall composite for each production region was evaluated. The composite samples received more intensive testing with milling yield, flour and dough quality, and baking properties being characterized. Survey Results The survey results are presented in the subsequent tables. Measurements of the individual samples are presented either as grading criteria (Table ) or non-grade criteria (Tables and ). Measurements of the composite samples are presented by each state, and the quality criteria are grouped as flour quality analyses (Tables 4 through 9), dough quality analyses (Tables 0 through 5), and baking quality analyses (Tables 6 through ). The values are weighted based on the regional production statistics reported by the National Agricultural Statistics Services. Descriptions of the wheat quality tests and wheat grading procedures can be found in earlier Kansas State University Extension publications (Herrman et al., 996; Herrman and Reed, 000). Literature Cited Herrman, T., R. Bequette, P. McCluskey, J. Pedersen, J. Ponte, and J. Shroyer Quality Oriented Marketing of Hard Winter Wheat: A Description of Quality Evaluation Techniques. MF-9, Cooperative Extension Service. Kansas State University, Manhattan. Herrman, T. and C. Reed Wheat Grading Procedures. EP-98, K-State Research and Extension. Kansas State University, Manhattan.

4 Table. Hard red winter wheat grade data for the 006 crop year, State and Crop Test weight Damaged Foreign Shrunken/broken Total U.S. Reporting Area Lbs/Bu Kg/hl Kernels, % Material, % kernels, % defects, % grade Texas T T T T T T Oklahoma O O O O O O O Kansas K K K K K K K K K K Colorado C C C Nebraska N N N N N South Dakota S S Based on individual samples Values weighted based on 005 production (NASS, 006)

5 Table. Hard red winter wheat non-grade data for the 006 crop year, Protein (%) Ash (%) State and Crop Reporting Area Dockage (%) Moisture (%) % moisture basis Dry matter basis 4% moisture basis Dry matter basis Falling number (sec) Wet Gluten (%) Texas T T T T T T Oklahoma O O O O O O O Kansas K K K K K K K K K K Colorado C C C Nebraska N N N N N South Dakota S S Based on individual samples Values weighted based on 005 production (NASS, 006)

6 Table. Hard red winter wheat non-grade data for the 006 crop year, Kernel Size Single Kernel State and Crop Reporting Area,000 Kernel Weight (g) Large (%) Medium (%) Small (%) Hardness Weight (mg) Diameter (mm) Texas T T T T T T Oklahoma O O O O O O O Kansas K K K K K K K K K K Colorado C C C Nebraska N N N N N South Dakota S S Based on individual samples Values weighted based on 005 production (NASS, 006) 4

7 Table 4. Texas hard red winter wheat flour quality data for the 006 crop year Production Area Protein Level Composite Composite Medium High Strong Overall Extraction rate (%) T T T T T5 T6 7.8 Color L/a/b T 90.5/-.6/ /-.6/0 90.6/-./ /-.5/9.4 T 9.0/-.8/ /-.5/9. 9.0/-.6/9 90.7/-.6/8.7 T 9./-.0/ /-.8/8.5 9./-.9/8.7 T4 89.6/-./ /-.5/9. T5 T6 90.0/-./9. Protein (%) 4%/0% moisture basis T 0./.0.0/4.0./5.4.9/.8 T 0.0/.7.7/.6.9/5.0.4/4.4 T 0.6/..6/4.7./. T4./..6/.5 T5 T6 5.5/8 Ash (%) 4%/0% moisture basis T 0.67/ / / /0.64 T 0.48/ /0.8 0./ /0.4 T 0.45/ / /0.5 T4 0.66/ /0.85 T5 T6 0.88/.0 Wet gluten (%/index) T 7./8..4/ /74.8.4/84. T 6.4/96.6.7/9. 5.5/89.8./94. T 0.7/ /75..8/74.7 T4 8.7/68.8./76.7 T5 T6 45.4/59. Falling number (sec) T T T T T5 T6 40 Protein levels: <.5% (Low);.5-.5 % (Medium),.5-.5% (High), and >.5% (Strong).

8 Table 5. Oklahoma hard red winter wheat flour quality data for the 006 crop year Protein Level Composite Area Composite Medium High Strong Overall Extraction rate (%) O O O 7.6 O O O O Color L/a/b O 9.0/-.7/ /-.6/ /-.6/9. O 90.6/-.4/ /-./ /-./8.7 O 90.4/-./8.9 O4 89.7/-./ /-./ /-.4/9. O5 89.9/-.4/ /-./ /-./8. 90./-.4/8.4 O6 9.0/-.7/ /-./ /./8. 9./-./8. O7 90.6/-./ /-./ /-./8 90./-./8. Protein (%) 4%/0% moisture basis O.4/..8/4.9.7/4.8 O.4/4.4./5.4.4/4.4 O 4.0/6. O4./4..8/6.7/5.9 O5 0.6/..9/.8.8/.7./. O6 0.4/..0/4.7/4.8./4. O7 0.9/.6.0/4.8/4.8.0/.9 Ash (%) 4%/0% moisture basis O 0.4/ / /0.48 O 0.69/ / /0.67 O 0.75/0.87 O4 0.8/ / /0.88 O5 0.70/ / / /0.87 O6 0.54/ / / /0.77 O7 0.58/ / / /0.68 Wet gluten (%/index) O.5/ /88 6.6/9.9 O.7/ / /9. O 6.4/80. O4 4.7/ / /58. O5 7.7/ /85./ /78.9 O6 5.6/89..0/74. 7./75.7.6/76.9 O7 7./9. 5.8/ /8. 6.0/78 Falling number (sec) O O O 44 O O O O Protein levels: <.5% (Low);.5-.5 % (Medium),.5-.5% (High), and >.5% (Strong).

9 Table 6. Kansas hard red winter wheat flour quality data for the 006 crop year Protein Level Composite Area Composite Medium High Strong Overall Extraction rate (%) K 68.5 K 68.9 K K K K K K K K Color L/a/b K 90.5/-.4/8. K 89.9/-./8.6 K 9.5/-.6/9. 90./-.5/8.7 9./-.4/ /-./8.9 K4 90.7/-.4/8. 90./-./8. 89./-./8.4 K5 90./-.5/8. 90./-.4/ /-.4/ /-.5/8. K6 87./-./ /-./ /-./8. K7 87./-./ /-./7. 90./-./7.8 K8 86.9/-./ /-./ /-./ /-./7.4 K9 87.4/-./7 86.6/-./7. 87./-./ /-.4/7.5 K0 88./-.6/ /-.4/ /-.5/7.9 Protein (%) 4%/0% moisture basis K./5.4 K 4.8/7. K./..4/4.4.9/6../5. K4.9/.8.0/5../4. K5 0.9/.7.6/.5.4/4.4.5/. K6.9/5 4.8/7..9/6. K7.4/4.4.4/5.6.4/5.6 K8 0.8/.5.7/.6./5..8/.7 K9./.7/.6.9/5.7/.6 K0 0./.8.4/..0/.8 Ash (%) 4%/0% moisture basis K 0.64/0.74 K 0.78/0.9 K 0.70/ / / /0.87 K4 0.65/ / /0.76 K5 0.64/ / / /0.87 K6 0.6/ / /0.67 K7 0.55/ / /0.7 K8 0.58/ / / /0.64 K9 0.55/ / / /0.59 K0 0.5/ / /0.6 Wet gluten (%/index) K 6.5/74.6 K 4./80. K 0.4/80. 4./ /77. 6./8.9 K4 0.4/80. 8./7.9./75.7 K5.9/9. 0.8/ /7.6./84.5 K6 8./ /77 4.6/7.8 K7 5./89 4.5/8.6 9./80.6 K8 8.6/9.7 0./ /86.6.4/85.7 K9 8./ /96.8./9.6.7/9.8 K0 7./ /9. 8.0/90.7 Falling number (sec) K 76 K 99 K K K K K K K K Protein levels: <.5% (Low);.5-.5 % (Medium),.5-.5% (High), and >.5% (Strong).

10 Table 7. Colorado hard red winter wheat flour quality data for the 006 crop year Protein Level Composite Area Composite Medium High Strong Overall Extraction rate (%) C C C Color L/a/b C 87.6/-.4/ /-.6/ /-.6/ /-.5/8. C 87.5/-.6/ /-.5/ /-.6/8.8 C 88.4/-.7/ /-.7/ /-.6/ /-.6/8.7 Protein (%) 4%/0% moisture basis C 0.4/..8/.7.4/5.6./4. C.6/4.7.4/5.6.8/4.9 C 0.9/.7.7/.6./5..7/4.7 Ash (%) 4%/0% moisture basis C 0.5/ / / /0.6 C 0.56/ / /0.65 C 0.55/ / / /0.64 Wet gluten (%/index) C 8./9.6.5/76. 8./ /7.5 C 4.6/ / /70.7 C 8.4/98.4.7/ / /80.7 Falling number (sec) C C C Protein levels: <.5% (Low);.5-.5 % (Medium),.5-.5% (High), and >.5% (Strong).

11 Table 8. Nebraska hard red winter wheat flour quality data for the 006 crop year Protein Level Composite Area Composite Low Medium High Strong Overall Extraction rate (%) N N N N N Color L/a/b N 88./-.6/ /-.6/ /-.7/ /-.6/8 N 9./-.8/ /-.5/ /-.5/ /-.6/7.6 N 88.4/-.5/ /-.5/ /-.5/ /-.4/7.6 N4 88./-.5/ /-.4/ /-./ /-.4/7.4 N5 9.0/-.4/ /-.6/ /-.6/ /-.5/7.8 9./-.6/8.5 Protein (%) 4%/0% moisture basis N 0./.8.4/../5../4. N./.9./4./5.5.6/4.7 N 0.7/.4.9/.8.5/4.5.4/4.4 N4 0.5/..5/.4./5../. N5 8.7/0../.9.4/..0/5..7/.7 Ash (%) 4%/0% moisture basis N 0.50/ / / /0.6 N 0.55/ / / /0.7 N 0.49/ / / /0.64 N4 0.47/ / / /0.64 N5 0.4/ / / / /0.58 Wet gluten (%/index) N 6.7/95.9.8/ /87.4/94. N 0.0/94.5.8/ / /9. N 7./95..8/84.9/96.5./9. N4 6.4/ / / /94.6 N5 6.9/ /97.4.5/ /85../95. Falling number (sec) N N N N N Protein levels: <.5% (Low);.5-.5 % (Medium),.5-.5% (High), and >.5% (Strong).

12 Table 9. South Dakota hard red winter wheat flour quality data for the 006 crop year Protein Level Composite Area Composite Low Medium High Strong Overall Extraction rate (%) S S Color L/a/b S 88.6/-.6/ /-.6/ /-.5/ /-.5/8. 88./-.5/8 S 88.8/-.5/ /-.5/ /-.5/ /-./ /-.5/8. Protein (%) 4%/0% moisture basis S 9.7/../.9.6/.5.0/5..0/4 S 9.9/.5.0/.8.4/..0/5..6/.5 Ash (%) 4%/0% moisture basis S 0.49/ / / / /0.57 S 0.5/ / / / /0.54 Wet gluten (%/index) S 5./ /9.6.5/94 5.8/95..6/9. S 4./94.5.0/96.5./ /98.7/96.7 Falling number (sec) S S Protein levels: <.5% (Low);.5-.5 % (Medium),.5-.5% (High), and >.5% (Strong). 0

13 Table 0. Texas hard red winter wheat dough quality data for the 006 crop year Farinograph Mixograph Alveograph Protein Level Peak Stability Absorption Peak Absorption P (mm) L (mm) W Composite (min) (min) (%) (min) (%) P/L (0-4 joules) Area T Medium High Strong Overall Area T Medium High Strong Overall Area T Medium High Strong Overall Area T4 Medium High Strong Overall Area T5 Medium High Strong Overall Area T6 Medium High Strong Overall Protein levels: <.5% (Low);.5-.5 % (Medium),.5-.5% (High), and >.5% (Strong).

14 Table. Oklahoma hard red winter wheat dough quality data for the 006 crop year Farinograph Mixograph Alveograph Protein Level Peak Stability Absorption Peak Absorption P (mm) L (mm) W Composite (min) (min) (%) (min) (%) P/L (0-4 joules) Area O Medium High Strong Overall Area O Medium High Strong Overall Area O Medium High Strong Overall Area O4 Medium High Strong Overall Area O5 Medium High Strong Overall Area O6 Medium High Strong Overall Area O7 Medium High Strong Overall Protein levels: <.5% (Low);.5-.5 % (Medium),.5-.5% (High), and >.5% (Strong).

15 Table. Kansas hard red winter wheat dough quality data for the 006 crop year Farinograph Mixograph Alveograph Protein Level Peak Stability Absorption Peak Absorption P (mm) L (mm) W Composite (min) (min) (%) (min) (%) P/L (0-4 joules) Area K Medium High Strong Overall Area K Medium High Strong Overall Area K Medium High Strong Overall Area K4 Medium High Strong Overall Area K5 Medium High Strong Overall Area K6 Medium High Strong Overall Area K7 Medium High Strong Overall Area K8 Medium High Strong Overall Area K9 Medium High Strong Overall Area K0 Medium High Strong Overall Protein levels: <.5% (Low);.5-.5 % (Medium),.5-.5% (High), and >.5% (Strong).

16 Table. Colorado hard red winter wheat dough quality data for the 006 crop year Farinograph Mixograph Alveograph Protein Level Peak Stability Absorption Peak Absorption P (mm) L (mm) W Composite (min) (min) (%) (min) (%) P/L (0-4 joules) Area C Medium High Strong Overall Area C Medium High Strong Overall Area C Medium High Strong Overall Protein levels: <.5% (Low);.5-.5 % (Medium),.5-.5% (High), and >.5% (Strong). 4

17 Table 4. Nebraska hard red winter wheat dough quality data for the 006 crop year Farinograph Mixograph Alveograph Protein Level Peak Stability Absorption Peak Absorption P (mm) L (mm) W Composite (min) (min) (%) (min) (%) P/L (0-4 joules) Area N Medium High Strong Overall Area N Medium High Strong Overall Area N Medium High Strong Overall Area N4 Medium High Strong Overall Area N5 Low Medium High Strong Overall Protein levels: <.5% (Low);.5-.5 % (Medium),.5-.5% (High), and >.5% (Strong). 5

18 Table 5. South Dakota hard red winter wheat dough quality data for the 006 crop year Farinograph Mixograph Alveograph Protein Level Peak Stability Absorption Peak Absorption P (mm) L (mm) W Composite (min) (min) (%) (min) (%) P/L (0-4 joules) Area S Low Medium High Strong Overall Area S Low Medium High Strong Overall Protein levels: <.5% (Low);.5-.5 % (Medium),.5-.5% (High), and >.5% (Strong). Table 6. Texas hard red winter wheat bake quality data for the 006 crop year Protein Level Composite Area Composite Medium High Strong Overall Loaf volume (cc) T T T T T5 T6 850 Crumb grain score (-8) T T T T4 4 T5 T6 7 Crumb texture score (-8) T T T T4 4 5 T5 T6 6 Protein levels: <.5% (Low);.5-.5 % (Medium),.5-.5% (High), and >.5% (Strong). 6

19 Table 7. Oklahoma hard red winter wheat bake quality data for the 006 crop year Protein Level Composite Area Composite Medium High Strong Overall Loaf volume (cc) O O O 875 O O O O Crumb grain score (-8) O O O 6 O O O O Crumb texture score (-8) O O O 6 O O O O Protein levels: <.5% (Low);.5-.5 % (Medium),.5-.5% (High), and >.5% (Strong). 7

20 Table 8. Kansas hard red winter wheat bake quality data for the 006 crop year Protein Level Composite Area Composite Medium High Strong Overall Loaf volume (cc) K 875 K 850 K K K K K K K K Crumb grain score (-8) K 5 K 4 K K K K K K K K Crumb texture score (-8) K 5 K 6 K K K K K K K K Protein levels: <.5% (Low);.5-.5 % (Medium),.5-.5% (High), and >.5% (Strong). Table 9. Colorado hard red winter wheat bake quality data for the 006 crop year Protein Level Composite Area Composite Medium High Strong Overall Loaf volume (cc) C C C Crumb grain score (-8) C C 5 4 C Crumb texture score (-8) C C C Protein levels: <.5% (Low);.5-.5 % (Medium),.5-.5% (High), and >.5% (Strong). 8

21 Table 0. Nebraska hard red winter wheat bake quality data for the 006 crop year Protein Level Composite Area Composite Low Medium High Strong Overall Loaf volume (cc) N N N N N Crumb grain score (-8) N N N N N Crumb texture score (-8) N N N N N Protein levels: <.5% (Low);.5-.5 % (Medium),.5-.5% (High), and >.5% (Strong). Table. South Dakota hard red winter wheat bake quality data for the 006 crop year Protein Level Composite Area Composite Low Medium High Strong Overall Loaf volume (cc) S S Crumb grain score (-8) S S Crumb texture score (-8) S S Protein levels: <.5% (Low);.5-.5 % (Medium),.5-.5% (High), and >.5% (Strong). 9

22 0

23

24 Leland McKinney Extension State Leader Grain Science and Industry Jane Lingenfelser Assistant Agronomist Agronomy Mark Fowler Director of Technical Services International Grains Program Brand names appearing in this publication are for product identification purposes only. No endorsement is intended, nor is criticism implied of similar products not mentioned. Publications from Kansas State University are available on the World Wide Web at: Contents of this publication may be freely reproduced for educational purposes. All other rights reserved. In each case, credit Leland McKinney et al., 006 Hard Red Winter Wheat Quality Survey of the Great Plains, Kansas State University, February 007. Kansas State University Agricultural Experiment Station and Cooperative Extension Service MF- February 007 K-State Research and Extension is an equal opportunity provider and employer. Issued in furtherance of Cooperative Extension Work, Acts of May 8 and June 0, 94, as amended. Kansas State University, County Extension Councils, Extension Districts, and United States Department of Agriculture Cooperating, Fred A. Cholick, Director.